As a long time amatuer fan of world war one, I always despair at that word wastage! That is the number of men killed or out of action with no major offensives ie just holding the line Wastage - that is someones son or husband or brother!
And what is your alternative? The problem with industrial scale wars is that manpower is a resource, and it has to be managed. There is no way around that. War is a brutal thing, and the economics of war are equally brutal. That unfortunately is the reality of the situation.
Lioyd George admitted later in 1918 that he was keeping troops from the army. Google it. After the losses from Passchendaele he didn't want to give Haig what he wanted. And, not mentioned, is that when the divisions sizes were cut they received much more fire power like artillery and so on to make up for the men removed.
A valid observation. The number of machine guns per infantry company was increased. The increased number of tanks and air planes added offensive strength.
The speaker addresses this exactly. She couldn't have been any more clear about Lloyd George and his proximity (or rather lack there from) to the truth.
According to the statistics volume of A History of the Great War (the official British publication) there were 1.5 MILLION troops present in the UK on 11 November 1918. How you can argue that the manpower problem wasn’t artificial is beyond me.
Call-up usually refers to the calling-up of reserves - those who were previously drafted or had been in service and were trained. Even these previously experienced units require some amount of retraining to refresh their skills and "limber them up" just as calisthenics are used to ready a body for exertion. The training of an actual soldier from a raw civililan is said to take anywhere from 6 to 12 months. I imagine 3 to 6 months in this era (1914-1918), as the material was not overly complicated yet, and the armed forces were not mechanized to any real extent.
She is a mouth piece for Lloyd George, in one of her final sentences she says "the infantry battalions were brought up to full strength" failing to mention that the number of infantry battalions were CUT by 25%. "Slightly understrength on the 21st March" at the lowest level a Brigade which had 4 Battalions was reduced to 3. That doesn't seem like "slightly".
The Military Act Number 1 of 1918 attempted to prioritise man power allocation. The decision to cut the strength of the infantry division was included in the legislation. The agreement to extend the BEF front coverage from the French by 33% seems barmy given the shortage of infantry.
A formation with a full allocation of people, arms, ammunition and rations will perform better that a hollowed out battalion. I think that is the point she is making.
The Allies put reliance on airpower, artillery and armoured forces in WW2 in Normandy. But the British infantry loss rate was heavy, comparible to the Somme in 1916.
As a long time amatuer fan of world war one, I always despair at that word wastage!
That is the number of men killed or out of action with no major offensives ie just holding the line
Wastage - that is someones son or husband or brother!
And what is your alternative? The problem with industrial scale wars is that manpower is a resource, and it has to be managed. There is no way around that. War is a brutal thing, and the economics of war are equally brutal. That unfortunately is the reality of the situation.
Lioyd George admitted later in 1918 that he was keeping troops from the army. Google it. After the losses from Passchendaele he didn't want to give Haig what he wanted. And, not mentioned, is that when the divisions sizes were cut they received much more fire power like artillery and so on to make up for the men removed.
A valid observation. The number of machine guns per infantry company was increased. The increased number of tanks and air planes added offensive strength.
The speaker addresses this exactly. She couldn't have been any more clear about Lloyd George and his proximity (or rather lack there from) to the truth.
A very good and informative lecture.
Nicely done. Thank you.
According to the statistics volume of A History of the Great War (the official British publication) there were 1.5 MILLION troops present in the UK on 11 November 1918. How you can argue that the manpower problem wasn’t artificial is beyond me.
Thank you for posting this. Very informative.
Great talk, really interesting.
Very interesting lecture thanks
A very interesting lecture, Dr Hine should not be so eager to issue disclaimers at the start!
What is the difference between call up and being drafted?
Then how long does it take to train an infantryman to a reasonable standard
Call-up usually refers to the calling-up of reserves - those who were previously drafted or had been in service and were trained. Even these previously experienced units require some amount of retraining to refresh their skills and "limber them up" just as calisthenics are used to ready a body for exertion. The training of an actual soldier from a raw civililan is said to take anywhere from 6 to 12 months. I imagine 3 to 6 months in this era (1914-1918), as the material was not overly complicated yet, and the armed forces were not mechanized to any real extent.
G00D Evening from Auckland, New Zealand it’s Thursday, 21 May 2020.
British industry, esp war munitions, was heavily reliant on women to maintain production targets. Dilution was an issue with the unions.
She is a mouth piece for Lloyd George, in one of her final sentences she says "the infantry battalions were brought up to full strength" failing to mention that the number of infantry battalions were CUT by 25%. "Slightly understrength on the 21st March" at the lowest level a Brigade which had 4 Battalions was reduced to 3. That doesn't seem like "slightly".
There are gentler ways of disagreeing with someone, especially a lady.
The Military Act Number 1 of 1918 attempted to prioritise man power allocation. The decision to cut the strength of the infantry division was included in the legislation. The agreement to extend the BEF front coverage from the French by 33% seems barmy given the shortage of infantry.
A formation with a full allocation of people, arms, ammunition and rations will perform better that a hollowed out battalion. I think that is the point she is making.
Well perhaps General Haig , you shouldn't have been so profligate with your men .
The Allies put reliance on airpower, artillery and armoured forces in WW2 in Normandy. But the British infantry loss rate was heavy, comparible to the Somme in 1916.
Given the scale of British infantry casualties in 1916/1917, it's not surprising that men were reluctant to volunteer in 1918.
This is a great lecture. Are the slides posted anywhere?